https://www.sciencealert.com/strange-motion-of-neutrons-proves-nature-is-fundamentally-...

"At the very smallest scales, our intuitive view of reality no longer applies. It's almost as if physics is fundamentally indecisive, a truth that gets harder to ignore as we zoom in on the particles that pixelate our Univerrse.

"In order to better understand it, physicists had to devise an entirely new framework to place it in, one based on probability over certainty. This is quantum theory, and it describes all sorts of phenomena, from entanglement to superposition.

***

"Specifically, neutrons fired in a beam in a neutron interferometer can exist in two places at the same time, something that is impossible under classical physics.

"The test is based on a mathematical assertion called the Leggett-Garg inequality, which states that a system is always determinately in one or the other of the states available to it. Basically, Schrödinger's Cat is either alive or dead, and we are able to determine which of those states it is in without our measurements having an effect on the outcome.

"Macro systems – those we can reliably understand using classical physics alone – obey the Leggett-Garg inequality. But systems in the quantum realm violate it. The cat is alive and dead simultaneously, an analogy for quantum superposition.

"'The idea behind it is similar to the more famous Bell's inequality, for which the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded in 2022," says physicist Elisabeth Kreuzgruber of the Vienna University of Technology.

"'However, Bell's inequality is about the question of how strongly the behavior of a particle is related to another quantum entangled particle. The Leggett-Garg inequality is only about one single object and asks the question: how is its state at specific points in time related to the state of the same object at other specific points in time?"

"The neutron interferometer involves firing a beam of neutrons at a target. As the beam travels through the apparatus, it splits in two, with each of the beam's prongs traveling separate paths until they are later recombined.

"Leggett and Garg's theorem states that a measurement on a simple binary system can effectively give two results. Measure it again in the future, those results will be correlated, but only up to a certain point.

"For quantum systems, Leggett and Garg's theorem no longer applies, permitting correlations above this threshold. In effect this would give researchers a way to distinguish whether a system needs a quantum theorem to be understood.

***

"In order to achieve this, the space between the two parts of the neutron beam in the interferometer is on a scale that's more macro than quantum.

"'Quantum theory says that every single neutron travels on both paths at the same time," says physicist Niels Geerits of the Vienna University of Technology . "However, the two partial beams are several centimeters apart. In a sense, we are dealing with a quantum object that is huge by quantum standards."

"Using several different measurement methods, the researchers probed the neutron beams at different times. And, sure enough, the measurements were too closely correlated for the classical rules of macro reality to be at play. The neutrons, their measurements suggested, were actually traveling simultaneously on two separate paths, separated by a distance of several centimeters. (my bold)

"It's just the latest in a long string of Leggett-Garg experiments that show we really do need quantum theory in order to describe the Universe we live in.

"'Our experiment shows: Nature really is as strange as quantum theory claims," says physicist Stephan Sponar of the Vienna University of Technology. "No matter which classical, macroscopically realistic theory you come up with: It will never be able to explain reality. It doesn't work without quantum physics.'"

Comment: Schoeder's cat is still puzzling us. I dropped this in as a reminder quantum theory is alive and well. If one assumes God is all-powerful, omniscient, then this is only way our reality can work. There must be a reason for this arrangement, but I doubt we will ever know it, since it is so strange to us.

https://www.sciencealert.com/mathematics-has-a-biological-origin-study-reveals?utm_sour...

"By stepping outside the box of our usual way of thinking about numbers, my colleagues and I have recently shown that arithmetic has biological roots and is a natural consequence of how perception of the world around us is organised.

"Our results explain why arithmetic is true and suggest that mathematics is a realisation in symbols of the fundamental nature and creativity of the mind.

"Thus, the miraculous correspondence between mathematics and physical reality that has been a source of wonder from the ancient Greeks to the present – as explored in astrophysicist Mario Livio's book Is God a mathematician? – suggests the mind and world are part of a common unity.

"Humans have been making symbols for numbers for more than 5,500 years. More than 100 distinct notation systems are known to have been used by different civilisations, including Babylonian, Egyptian, Etruscan, Mayan and Khmer.

***

"We proposed a new approach based on the assumption that arithmetic has a biological origin.

Many non-human species, including insects, show an ability for spatial navigation which seems to require the equivalent of algebraic computation. For example, bees can take a meandering journey to find nectar but then return by the most direct route, as if they can calculate the direction and distance home.

"How their miniature brain (about 960,000 neurons) achieves this is unknown. These calculations might be the non-symbolic precursors of addition and multiplication, honed by natural selection as the optimal solution for navigation.

"Arithmetic may be based on biology and special in some way because of evolution's fine-tuning.

***

"In our research, we proved that four assumptions – monotonicity, convexity, continuity and isomorphism – were sufficient to uniquely identify arithmetic (addition and multiplication over the real numbers) from the universe of possibilities.

"Monotonicity is the intuition of "order preserving" and helps us keep track of our place in the world, so that when we approach an object it looms larger but smaller when we move away.
Convexity is grounded in intuitions of "betweenness". For example, the four corners of a football pitch define the playing field even without boundary lines connecting them.
Continuity describes the smoothness with which objects seem to move in space and time.
Isomorphism is the idea of sameness or analogy. It's what allows us to recognise that a cat is more similar to a dog than to a rock.

"Thus, arithmetic is special because it is a consequence of these purely qualitative conditions.

***

"...our results show that arithmetic is biologically-based and a natural consequence of how our perception is structured.

"Although this structure is shared with other animals, only humans have invented mathematics. It is humanity's most intimate creation, a realisation in symbols of the fundamental nature and creativity of the mind.

"In this sense, mathematics is both invented (uniquely human) and discovered (biologically-based). The seemingly miraculous success of mathematics in the physical sciences hints that our mind and the world are not separate, but part of a common unity.

"The arc of mathematics and science points toward non-dualism, a philosophical concept that describes how the mind and the universe as a whole are connected, and that any sense of separation is an illusion. This is consistent with many spiritual traditions (Taoism, Buddhism) and Indigenous knowledge systems such as mātauranga Māori." (my bold)

Comment: The bolded conclusion tells me God is a mathematician. In my view there is a real Cartesian dualism between mind and consciousness as demonstrated by NDE's, in which the near-to-death person experiences a reality, while unconscious, in which he learns facts that are corroborated.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-fields-energy/?utm_campaign=swab&ut...

"One of the biggest questions that appears right at the intersection of physics and philosophy is as simple as it is puzzling: what is real? Is reality simply described by the particles that exist, atop a background of spacetime described by General Relativity? Is it fundamentally wrong to describe these entities as particles, and must we consider them as some sort of hybrid wave/particle/probability function: a more complete description of each “quantum” in our reality? Or are there fields, fundamentally, that underpin all of existence, where the “quanta” that we typically interact with are simply examples of excitations of those fields?

"When quantum mechanics arrived on the scene, it brought with it the realization that quantities that were previously thought to be well-defined, like:

"...the position and momentum of a particle, its energy and location in time,and its angular momentum in each of the three spatial dimensions that we have, could no longer be assigned values, only a probability distribution for what values they could take on. Although this weirdness, on its own, brought about many arguments over the nature of reality, things would soon get even weirder with the introduction of quantum fields. For generations, physicists argued whether those quantum fields were actually real, or whether they were simply calculational tools.

"Nearly a full century later, we’re certain that they’re real for one unambiguous reason: they carry energy. Here’s how we found out.

***

"Classically, you’d describe the fields (like electric and magnetic fields) that each particle generates, and then each quantum would interact with those fields. But what do you do when each field-generating particle has inherently uncertain properties to it, like position and momentum? You can’t simply treat the electric field generated by this wave-like, spread-out electron as coming from a single point, and obeying the classical laws of Maxwell’s equations.

"This was what compelled us to advance from simple quantum mechanics to quantum field theory, which didn’t just promote certain physical properties to being quantum operators, but promoted the fields themselves to being quantum operators.

***

"Of course, one could argue that quantum fields needed to be real from the very start: since the first observation of the Lamb shift back in 1947. Electrons in the 2s orbital of hydrogen occupy a very slightly different energy level than electrons in the 2p orbital, which did not arise even in relativistic quantum mechanics; the Lamb-Retherford experiment revealed it even before the first modern quantum field theory — quantum electrodynamics — was developed by Schwinger, Feynman, Tomonaga and others.

"Still, there’s something quite special about predicting an effect before it’s observed, rather than explaining an already-observed effect after the fact, which is why the other three phenomena stand apart from the initial impetus for formulating a quantum field theory.

"One possible connection to the larger Universe is the fact that the observed effect of dark energy, which causes the accelerated expansion of the Universe, behaves identically to what we would expect if there were a small but positive, non-zero value to the zero-point energy of empty space. As of 2023, this is still speculation, as calculating the zero-point energy of space is beyond the present capability of physicists. Nevertheless, quantum fields must be considered real, as they carry energy and have both calculable and measurable effects on the light and matter within the Universe. Perhaps, if nature is kind, we might be on the cusp of discovering an even deeper connection."

Comment: quantum reality is more 'real'. Particles are still smudges in their fields. but the fields really exist and can be dealt with mathematically.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-reality/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_m...

"Despite what we might have intuited beforehand, the Universe showed us that the rules it obeys are bizarre, but consistent. The rules are just profoundly and fundamentally different from anything we’d ever seen before.

"It wasn’t so surprising that the Universe was made of indivisible, fundamental units: quanta, like quarks, electrons, or photons. What was surprising is that these individual quanta didn’t behave like Newton’s particles: with well-defined positions, momenta, and angular momenta. Instead, these quanta behaved like waves — where you could compute probability distributions for their outcomes — but making a measurement would only ever give you one specific answer, and you can never predict which answer you’ll get for an individual measurement.

***

"In other words, every individual electron has a finite probability of having its spin be either +½ or -½, and that making a measurement in one particular direction (x, y, or z) determines the electron’s angular momentum properties in that one dimension while simultaneously destroying any information about the other two directions.

"This might sound counterintuitive, but it’s not only a property inherent to the quantum Universe, it’s also a property shared by any physical theory that obeys a specific mathematical structure: non-commutativity. (I.e., a * b ≠ b * a.) The three directions of angular momentum don’t commute with one another. Energy and time don’t commute, leading to inherent uncertainties in the masses of short-lived particles. And position and momentum don’t commute either, meaning you cannot measure both where a particle is and how fast it’s moving simultaneously to arbitrary accuracy.

"But pinning down the behavior of nature under all sorts of circumstances is very different than assuming there even is some sort of objective reality that exists, deterministically, independent of any observer or key interaction.

***

"The idea that there is a fundamental, objective, observer-independent reality is an assumption with no evidence behind it, just thousands upon thousands of years of our intuition telling us “It should be so.”

"But science does not exist to show that reality conforms to our biases and prejudices and opinions; it seeks to uncover the nature of reality irrespective of our biases. If we really want to understand quantum mechanics, the goal should be more about letting go of our biases and embracing, without additional assumptions, what the Universe tells us about itself.

***

"In science, it is not up to us to declare what reality is and then contort our observations and measurements to conform to our assumptions. Instead, the theories and models that enable us to predict what we’ll observe and/or measure to the greatest accuracy, with the greatest predictive power, and zero unnecessary assumptions, are the ones that survive. It’s not a problem for physics that reality looks puzzling and bizarre; it’s only a problem if you demand that the Universe deliver something beyond what reality provides.

"There is a strange and wonderful reality out there, but until we devise an experiment that teaches us more than we presently know, it’s better to embrace reality as we can measure it than to impose an additional structure driven by our own biases. Until we do that, we’re superficially philosophizing about a matter where scientific intervention is required. Until we devise that key experiment, we’ll all remain in the dark."

Comment: throw out all preconceived thinking. It is counterintuitively wrong. Live with it.

https://www.realclearscience.com/2021/11/23/humans_didnt_invent_math_the_world_is_made_...

"Bees in hives produce hexagonal honeycomb. Why?

"According to the “honeycomb conjecture” in mathematics, hexagons are the most efficient shape for tiling the plane. If you want to fully cover a surface using tiles of a uniform shape and size, while keeping the total length of the perimeter to a minimum, hexagons are the shape to use.

***

"Here’s another example. There are two subspecies of North American periodical cicadas that live most of their lives in the ground. Then, every 13 or 17 years (depending on the subspecies), the cicadas emerge in great swarms for a period of around two weeks.

"Why is it 13 and 17 years? Why not 12 and 14? Or 16 and 18?

'One explanation appeals to the fact that 13 and 17 are prime numbers.

"Some cicadas have evolved to emerge from the ground at intervals of a prime number of years, possibly to avoid predators with life cycles of different lengths.

"Well, compare a 13-year life cycle and a 12-year life cycle. When a cicada with a 12-year life cycle comes out of the ground, the 2-year, 3-year and 4-year predators will also be out of the ground, because 2, 3 and 4 all divide evenly into 12.

"When a cicada with a 13-year life cycle comes out of the ground, none of its predators will be out of the ground, because none of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 divides evenly into 13. The same is true for 17.

***

"Once we start looking, it is easy to find other examples. From the shape of soap films, to gear design in engines, to the location and size of the gaps in the rings of Saturn, mathematics is everywhere.

"If mathematics explains so many things we see around us, then it is unlikely that mathematics is something we’ve created. The alternative is that mathematical facts are discovered: not just by humans, but by insects, soap bubbles, combustion engines and planets.

***

"The ancient Pythagoreans agreed with Plato that mathematics describes a world of objects. But, unlike Plato, they didn’t think mathematical objects exist beyond space and time.

Instead, they believed physical reality is made of mathematical objects in the same way matter is made of atoms.

"If reality is made of mathematical objects, it’s easy to see how mathematics might play a role in explaining the world around us.

***

"In the past decade, two physicists have mounted significant defences of the Pythagorean position: Swedish-US cosmologist Max Tegmark and Australian physicist-philosopher Jane McDonnell.

"Tegmark argues reality just is one big mathematical object. If that seems weird, think about the idea that reality is a simulation. A simulation is a computer program, which is a kind of mathematical object.

"McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself.

"I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance.

"Mathematical objects provide a structural framework for the physical world.

"It makes sense that Pythagoreanism is being rediscovered in physics.

"In the past century physics has become more and more mathematical, turning to seemingly abstract fields of inquiry such as group theory and differential geometry in an effort to explain the physical world.

"As the boundary between physics and mathematics blurs, it becomes harder to say which parts of the world are physical and which are mathematical.

"But it is strange that Pythagoreanism has been neglected by philosophers for so long.

"I believe that is about to change. The time has arrived for a Pythagorean revolution, one that promises to radically alter our understanding of reality. "

Comment: "Is God a Geometer" is a book published many years ago recognizing this approach. Our minds can see the inherent conceptual math which this article shows is a necessary part of reality. But this does not mean reality is psychic.

DAVID: Did you design your lovely home? Did you counsel with an architect? If so, you and he used aforethought in the design to make it have the new functions and livability you wanted. No crystal ball ever required, just designing brains as usual. No 'mastering' involved, just analysis of current uses and adaptations for changes desired. All requiring mentation.

dhw: I don’t know why you need to complicate the argument with this analogy, but it fits to a small degree, in so far as you do need designing brains to analyse current conditions (though these are new in the context of evolution) and make the changes required. Of course design requires mentation – hence the concept of the intelligent cell/cell community, which analyses the new conditions and either makes the changes required, or goes extinct. “No crystal ball required, just designing brains as usual.” Extension of the process: new conditions may allow for experiments in new forms of behaviour, leading to innovation. Still “no crystal ball required etc.”. The crystal ball is an image for foresight. No foresight required. Thank you for agreeing with me.

DAVID: What agreement? Please reread my answer. The entire discussion is about aforethought to be put into design. The 'crystal ball' is not hocus-pocus figments, but is attempting to answer future needs to the cover those forecast possibilities in the new design.

dhw: Your house is a poor analogy. The ‘crystal ball image’ is not hocus-pocus, it stands for looking into the future. My theory follows the same pattern that you have outlined: analysis of current conditions (in evolution, this involves changes to the environment), and adaptations for the changes required. Your architect knows from experience of possible future problems (flooding, subsidence etc.) but does not look into the future for unknown possibilities,and organisms don't either. They respond to current conditions. The only role played by the future is the obvious one that the changes are required in the present if the organism is to have a future!

The house is not a poor analogy. You and your architect must discuss the ease of activities of daily living, the new comforts, new room requirements, all problems of designing for the future. A need for a spear c an be solved only by a brain ready to conceive of the need and design it. If the earlier form cannot conceive of it, there is no perceived need. The bold is not possible until the brain is actually enlarged.

dhw: I don’t know why you need to complicate the argument with this analogy, but it fits to a small degree, in so far as you do need designing brains to analyse current conditions (though these are new in the context of evolution) and make the changes required. Of course design requires mentation – hence the concept of the intelligent cell/cell community, which analyses the new conditions and either makes the changes required, or goes extinct. “No crystal ball required, just designing brains as usual.” Extension of the process: new conditions may allow for experiments in new forms of behaviour, leading to innovation. Still “no crystal ball required etc.”. The crystal ball is an image for foresight. No foresight required. Thank you for agreeing with me.

DAVID: What agreement? Please reread my answer. The entire discussion is about aforethought to be put into design. The 'crystal ball' is not hocus-pocus figments, but is attempting to answer future needs to the cover those forecast possibilities in the new design.

Your house is a poor analogy. The ‘crystal ball image’ is not hocus-pocus, it stands for looking into the future. My theory follows the same pattern that you have outlined: analysis of current conditions (in evolution, this involves changes to the environment), and adaptations for the changes required. Your architect knows from experience of possible future problems (flooding, subsidence etc.) but does not look into the future for unknown possibilities,and organisms don't either. They respond to current conditions. The only role played by the future is the obvious one that the changes are required in the present if the organism is to have a future!

DAVID: You should agree design shows foresight. That is our experience in all problem-solving inventions.

dhw: Is it? I thought problem-solving entailed mastering current conditions, not looking into a crystal ball.

DAVID: Did you design your lovely home? Did you counsel with an architect? If so, you and he used aforethought in the design to make it have the new functions and livability you wanted. No crystal ball ever required, just designing brains as usual. No 'mastering' involved, just analysis of current uses and adaptations for changes desired. All requiring mentation.

dhw: I don’t know why you need to complicate the argument with this analogy, but it fits to a small degree, in so far as you do need designing brains to analyse current conditions (though these are new in the context of evolution) and make the changes required. Of course design requires mentation – hence the concept of the intelligent cell/cell community, which analyses the new conditions and either makes the changes required, or goes extinct. “No crystal ball required, just designing brains as usual.” Extension of the process: new conditions may allow for experiments in new forms of behaviour, leading to innovation. Still “no crystal ball required etc.”. The crystal ball is an image for foresight. No foresight required. Thank you for agreeing with me.

What agreement? Please reread my answer. The entire discussion is about aforethought to be put into design. The 'crystal ball' is not hocus-pocus figments, but is attempting to answer future needs to the cover those forecast possibilities in the new design.

dhw: Is it? I thought problem-solving entailed mastering current conditions, not looking into a crystal ball.

DAVID: Did you design your lovely home? Did you counsel with an architect? If so, you and he used aforethought in the design to make it have the new functions and livability you wanted. No crystal ball ever required, just designing brains as usual. No 'mastering' involved, just analysis of current uses and adaptations for changes desired. All requiring mentation.

I don’t know why you need to complicate the argument with this analogy, but it fits to a small degree, in so far as you do need designing brains to analyse current conditions (though these are new in the context of evolution) and make the changes required. Of course design requires mentation – hence the concept of the intelligent cell/cell community, which analyses the new conditions and either makes the changes required, or goes extinct. “No crystal ball required, just designing brains as usual.” Extension of the process: new conditions may allow for experiments in new forms of behaviour, leading to innovation. Still “no crystal ball required etc.”. The crystal ball is an image for foresight. No foresight required. Thank you for agreeing with me.

dhw: The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind? [I do not accept either theory.]

DAVID: But, interestingly, you agree design is required, and then scramble to explain the new designs with brilliant cell committees, based on studies in fairly simple free-living bacteria. it seems like any theoretical port in the storm of really logical thoughts.

You know perfectly well that the theory of cellular intelligence is based on far more than the study of bacteria, and your fixed belief that a 50/50 possibility = a 100% impossibility does you no credit. Nor does it in any way render the theory of an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful, conscious mind any more “scientific” than the theory of mindless materials evolving into conscious materials.

DAVID: You should agree design shows foresight. That is our experience in all problem-solving inventions.

dhw: Is it? I thought problem-solving entailed mastering current conditions, not looking into a crystal ball.

Did you design your lovely home? Did you counsel with an architect? If so, you and he used aforethought in the design to make it have the new functions and livability you wanted. No crystal ball ever required, just designing brains as usual. No 'mastering' involved, just analysis of current uses and adaptations for changes desired. All requiring mentation.

DAVID: But, interestingly, you agree design is required, and then scramble to explain the new designs with brilliant cell committees, based on studies in fairly simple free-living bacteria. it seems like any theoretical port in the storm of really logical thoughts.

You know perfectly well that the theory of cellular intelligence is based on far more than the study of bacteria, and your fixed belief that a 50/50 possibility = a 100% impossibility does you no credit. Nor does it in any way render the theory of an unknown, sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful, conscious mind any more “scientific” than the theory of mindless materials evolving into conscious materials.

DAVID: You should agree design shows foresight. That is our experience in all problem-solving inventions.

Is it? I thought problem-solving entailed mastering current conditions, not looking into a crystal ball.

QUOTE: "We on the reality-based side of this debate must not cede science to the atheists. Atkins is right that science can answer some of the biggest questions we can ask, such as “Does God exist?” Atkins’s problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides: using the ordinary methods of a posteriori inference essential to the scientific method, scientific evidence and logic clearly demonstrate the existence of God."

dhw: Scientific evidence and logic do no such thing! This is every bit as unscientific and illogical as the argument that science demonstrates that God does not exist. The only form of consciousness that we know of and can observe is that of material beings. What observable evidence is there that a conscious mind can exist without a source, has always been in existence, is capable of creating universes and living, material organisms? The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind?

DAVID: Your final hopeful ever-evolving theory must take into account the complexity of proteins as Tour points out. It required the appearance of biochemical molecules coming together in an organized fashion from inorganic chemical in the initial universe. Inorganic chemicals are simple and organic molecules are highly complex. Just compare the size of text books. Yours is an impossible wishful sort of prayer for miracles.

dhw: It is not a final theory. It is an alternative to the equally unscientific theory that there is some form of immaterial being with a sourceless mind capable of designing universes and all forms of life. I do not accept either theory.

But, interestingly, you agree design is required, and then scramble to explain the new designs with brilliant cell committees, based on studies in fairly simple free-living bacteria. it seems like any theoretical port in the storm of really logical thoughts

dhw: My own view is that science cannot possibly answer any of the “biggest questions” simply because science is confined to the study of the material world as we know it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing if the material world as we know it comprises a true and complete account of all reality.

DAVID: I agree to the extent that our view of reality is mediated by our biological brain which gives us an interpretation of reality.

Always a pleasure when we agree!

DAVID: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

dhw: Of course there is room for a theory of self-design (whether theistic or atheistic). It would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, and the drive for survival would explain the increased complexity from bacteria to elephants, whales, eagles and humans as new conditions trigger new modes of survival. Your own theory, however, has been covered comprehensively on other threads, so please let’s not discuss it here as well.

DAVID: Yes, design is required. the drive for survival is pure unacceptable Darwinism. Living animals are very wary for day to day survival, but have no foresight or ability to arrange for new modifications to enhance survival. Survival is good or bad luck, per Raup, if you believe in Darwin as he did.

dhw: I asked you not to discuss it. You know perfectly well that I say there is no foresight involved, it is your belief that cell communities are not intelligent enough to modify themselves (although you agree that they do when adaptations are minor), and of course it’s bad luck if some cell communities are not able to devise means of survival, just as it’s your bad luck if you’re not quick enough to get out of the way of a runaway bull.

You should agree design shows foresight. That is our experience in all problem-solving inventions.

dhw: Scientific evidence and logic do no such thing! This is every bit as unscientific and illogical as the argument that science demonstrates that God does not exist. The only form of consciousness that we know of and can observe is that of material beings. What observable evidence is there that a conscious mind can exist without a source, has always been in existence, is capable of creating universes and living, material organisms? The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind?

DAVID: Your final hopeful ever-evolving theory must take into account the complexity of proteins as Tour points out. It required the appearance of biochemical molecules coming together in an organized fashion from inorganic chemical in the initial universe. Inorganic chemicals are simple and organic molecules are highly complex. Just compare the size of text books. Yours is an impossible wishful sort of prayer for miracles.

It is not a final theory. It is an alternative to the equally unscientific theory that there is some form of immaterial being with a sourceless mind capable of designing universes and all forms of life. I do not accept either theory.

dhw: My own view is that science cannot possibly answer any of the “biggest questions” simply because science is confined to the study of the material world as we know it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing if the material world as we know it comprises a true and complete account of all reality.

DAVID: I agree to the extent that our view of reality is mediated by our biological brain which gives us an interpretation of reality.

Always a pleasure when we agree!

DAVID: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

dhw: Of course there is room for a theory of self-design (whether theistic or atheistic). It would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, and the drive for survival would explain the increased complexity from bacteria to elephants, whales, eagles and humans as new conditions trigger new modes of survival. Your own theory, however, has been covered comprehensively on other threads, so please let’s not discuss it here as well.

DAVID: Yes, design is required. the drive for survival is pure unacceptable Darwinism. Living animals are very wary for day to day survival, but have no foresight or ability to arrange for new modifications to enhance survival. Survival is good or bad luck, per Raup, if you believe in Darwin as he did.

I asked you not to discuss it. You know perfectly well that I say there is no foresight involved, it is your belief that cell communities are not intelligent enough to modify themselves (although you agree that they do when adaptations are minor), and of course it’s bad luck if some cell communities are not able to devise means of survival, just as it’s your bad luck if you’re not quick enough to get out of the way of a runaway bull.

QUOTE: From this undeniable evidence and solid logic we infer that a First Cause exists. The a posteriori reasoning behind the scientific evidence for God’s existence is much stronger — much more compelling scientific evidence — than the evidence for any other theory in natural science.

dhw: I don’t see how anyone can deny that there must be some kind of first cause. The question is what is its nature?

Animal, vegetable or mineral. Obviously a designing mind is required.

QUOTE: "We on the reality-based side of this debate must not cede science to the atheists. Atkins is right that science can answer some of the biggest questions we can ask, such as “Does God exist?” Atkins’s problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides: using the ordinary methods of a posteriori inference essential to the scientific method, scientific evidence and logic clearly demonstrate the existence of God."

dhw: Scientific evidence and logic do no such thing! This is every bit as unscientific and illogical as the argument that science demonstrates that God does not exist. The only form of consciousness that we know of and can observe is that of material beings. What observable evidence is there that a conscious mind can exist without a source, has always been in existence, is capable of creating universes and living, material organisms? The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind?

Your final hopeful ever-evolving theory must take into account the complexity of proteins as Tour points out. It required the appearance of biochemical molecules coming together in an organized fashion from inorganic chemical in the initial universe. Inorganic chemicals are simple and organic molecules are highly complex. Just compare the size of text books. Yours is an impossible wishful sort of prayer for miracles.

dhw: My own view is that science cannot possibly answer any of the “biggest questions” simply because science is confined to the study of the material world as we know it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing if the material world as we know it comprises a true and complete account of all reality.

I agree to the extent that our view of reality is mediated by our biological brain which gives us an interpretation of reality.

DAVID: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

dhw: Of course there is room for a theory of self-design (whether theistic or atheistic). It would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, and the drive for survival would explain the increased complexity from bacteria to elephants, whales, eagles and humans. Your own theory, however, has been covered comprehensively on other threads, so please let’s not discuss it here as well.

Yes, design is required. the drive for survival is pure unacceptable Darwinism. Living animals are very wary for day to day survival, but have no foresight or ability to arrange for new modifications to enhance survival. Survival is good or bad luck, per Raup, if you believe in Darwin as he did.

I don’t see how anyone can deny that there must be some kind of first cause. The question is what is its nature?

QUOTE: "We on the reality-based side of this debate must not cede science to the atheists. Atkins is right that science can answer some of the biggest questions we can ask, such as “Does God exist?” Atkins’s problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides: using the ordinary methods of a posteriori inference essential to the scientific method, scientific evidence and logic clearly demonstrate the existence of God."

Scientific evidence and logic do no such thing! This is every bit as unscientific and illogical as the argument that science demonstrates that God does not exist. The only form of consciousness that we know of and can observe is that of material beings. What observable evidence is there that a conscious mind can exist without a source, has always been in existence, is capable of creating universes and living, material organisms? The case for design is indeed strong, but if you believe a conscious designing mind can exist without a source as “first cause”, why should someone else not believe that conscious designing minds can evolve from ever changing materials as “first cause”? Why should eternal, ever-changing, ever-evolving materials be less “scientific” than an eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, immaterial conscious mind?

My own view is that science cannot possibly answer any of the “biggest questions” simply because science is confined to the study of the material world as we know it, and we have absolutely no way of knowing if the material world as we know it comprises a true and complete account of all reality.

DAVID: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

Of course there is room for a theory of self-design (whether theistic or atheistic). It would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, and the drive for survival would explain the increased complexity from bacteria to elephants, whales, eagles and humans. Your own theory, however, has been covered comprehensively on other threads, so please let’s not discuss it here as well.

https://evolutionnews.org/2020/01/can-science-answer-all-the-big-questions/

"The claim that science is the only way to answer all the big questions is itself not a scientific claim — it is an epistemological claim. The assertion that science can answer all questions is self-refuting. The assertion itself is not science.

"There are three ways we can know something about reality. We can perceive it with our senses — the coffee cup on the table in front of us, for example. Or we can infer something by a priori logical reasoning. Much of mathematics is like this.

"The third way is by a posteriori reasoning, which is inferential reasoning. A posteriori reasoning follows this pattern: we collect evidence about things that exist, and via a logical or mathematical process of reasoning we infer a truth about existence. This is the scientific method. This is also natural theology, which is the branch of theology that proves God’s existence using evidence and reason. It is distinguished from revealed theology, which deals with truths about God that are known from Scripture, tradition, etc.

"Natural theology is science. It is exactly the same kind of knowing that is used routinely in natural science. For example, consider our scientific knowledge about the Big Bang. We collect evidence (the red shift, cosmic background radiation, etc.), and by a process of reason and logic (Einstein’s general relativity, etc.) we conclude that the universe began as a singularity 14 billion years ago. It’s good science — solid a posteriori reasoning.

"Now consider one of the many strong proofs of God’s existence — Aquinas’ Second Way. We collect evidence (the fact that there are chains of essentially ordered causes in the universe), and by a process of reason and logic (the metaphysics of potency and act and Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle) we conclude that the universe has an Uncaused Cause, which all men call God. It’s also good science — solid a posteriori reasoning.

***

"If you look carefully, the scientific evidence for God is much stronger than the evidence for the Big Bang or for any commonly accepted scientific theory. The evidence employed in the First Cause argument is the fact that change occurs in nature, which is undeniable, and the logical process that follows is recognition of the nature of potentiality and actuality and the impossibility of something existing and not existing in the same way at the same time. From this undeniable evidence and solid logic we infer that a First Cause exists. The a posteriori reasoning behind the scientific evidence for God’s existence is much stronger — much more compelling scientific evidence — than the evidence for any other theory in natural science.

"We on the reality-based side of this debate must not cede science to the atheists. Atkins is right that science can answer some of the biggest questions we can ask, such as “Does God exist?” Atkins’s problem is that he doesn’t like the answer science provides: using the ordinary methods of a posteriori inference essential to the scientific method, scientific evidence and logic clearly demonstrate the existence of God."

Comment: Of Course I use the science of natural theology. The complexity requires a designer. and the complexity and the steady direction of evolution to the final result of the human brain makes the case for design. There is no room for a theory of self-design which would never create the directionality of evolution.

Reality: can science prove God?

DAVID: Not fully:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/?utm_source=...

"Can Science Rule Out God?"

QUOTE: "We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins.”

dhw: Nothing new here, but the article is a very fair summary of the pros and cons. All neatly balanced by the two headings. Yours: Can science prove God? Of course it can’t. The author’s: Can science rule out God? Of course it can’t.

There is no absolute proof for God.

DAVID: Not fully:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/?utm_source=...

"Can Science Rule Out God?"

QUOTE: "We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins.”

Nothing new here, but the article is a very fair summary of the pros and cons. All neatly balanced by the two headings. Yours: Can science prove God? Of course it can’t. The author’s: Can science rule out God? Of course it can’t.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-science-rule-out-god/?utm_source=...

"Can Science Rule Out God?
"We must understand the laws of nature before we can deduce their origins

***

"Is the universe infinite and eternal? Why does it seem to follow mathematical laws, and are those laws inevitable? And, perhaps most important, why does the universe exist? Why is there something instead of nothing?

***

"Einstein often invoked God when he talked about physics....He was clearly awed by the laws of physics and grateful that they were mathematically decipherable. (“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility,” he said. “The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.”)

***

"Although quantum theory is now the foundation of particle physics, many scientists still share Einstein’s discomfort with its implications. The theory has revealed aspects of nature that seem supernatural: the act of observing something can apparently alter its reality, and quantum entanglement can weave together distant pieces of spacetime. (Einstein derisively called it “spooky action at a distance.”) The laws of nature also put strict limits on what we can learn about the universe. We can’t peer inside black holes, for example, or view anything that lies beyond the distance that light has traveled since the start of the big bang.

***

"Cosmologists don’t know if the universe even had a beginning. Instead it might’ve had an eternal past before the big bang, stretching infinitely backward in time. Some cosmological models propose that the universe has gone through endless cycles of expansion and contraction. And some versions of the theory of inflation postulate an eternal process in which new universes are forever branching off from the speedily expanding “inflationary background.”

"But other cosmologists argue that inflation had to start somewhere, and the starting point could’ve been essentially nothing. As we’ve learned from quantum theory, even empty space has energy, and nothingness is unstable. All kinds of improbable things can happen in empty space, and one of them might’ve been a sudden drop to a lower vacuum energy, which could’ve triggered the inflationary expansion.

***

"Scientists don’t fully comprehend the quantum world yet, and their hypotheses about the first moments of Creation aren’t much more than guesses at this point. We need to discover and understand the fundamental laws of physics before we can say they’re inevitable. And we need to explore the universe and its history a little more thoroughly before we can make such definitive statements about its origins.

"Just for the sake of argument, though, let’s assume this hypothesis of Quantum Creation is correct. Suppose we do live in a universe that generated its own laws and called itself into being. Doesn’t that sound like Leibniz’s description of God (“a necessary being which has its reason for existence in itself”)? It’s also similar to Spinoza’s pantheism, his proposition that the universe as a whole is God. Instead of proving that God doesn’t exist, maybe science will broaden our definition of divinity.

***

"The pivotal role of observers in quantum theory is very curious. Is it possible that the human race has a cosmic purpose after all? Did the universe blossom into an untold number of realities, each containing billions of galaxies and vast oceans of emptiness between them, just to produce a few scattered communities of observers? Is the ultimate goal of the universe to observe its own splendor?

"Perhaps. We’ll have to wait and see."

Comment: A thoughtful review. I still feel a full understanding of quantum dynamics is required. The whole article is worth reading and the author is agnostic.

DAVID: I always try to educate. The weirdness of the actual experiments on the quantum particles cannot be denied, when it understood their final combinations in real objects are so different, as your bus.

dhw: I have never denied the weirdness of the experiments, and I keep agreeing that the behaviour of the final combinations is totally different from that of the individuals. I disagree with Kastner that the behaviour of the latter is more real than that of the former. You appear to have accepted this. I remain uncertain as to whether the behaviour of the latter creates the behaviour of the former, but you may be right. You do not ALWAYS try to educate. On controversial subjects such as the existence of God or your extraordinary theory of evolution, you try to persuade others that you are right and they are wrong! In such discussions you cannot be called the teacher, although – just like those whose equally subjective views are the exact opposite of your own – you would like to think you are!

DAVID: I agree that my subjective views are my own interpretation the the scientific facts I teach. I would add that the quantum level of reality and our level of reality are both equally real and I think Kastner probably viewed it that way.

dhw: You are a brilliant science teacher, but you are just as aware as I am that science cannot answer any of the major questions we keep discussing. And on these questions, I suggest that our levels of knowledge are equal, since nobody knows the answers! So long as we agree that quantum reality and our own reality are equally real, we can close the discussion.

Agreed. closed